"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

> > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > > all animals (an absolute),
> >
> > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
moral
> > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
>
> The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> common to Christianity and Western nations?

You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

[..]
> > > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> > > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> > > are not inherent.
> >
> > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
morals
> > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there
is
> > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
>
> There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

> > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> >
> > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
between
> > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
circumstances.
> > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
>
> Yet, you use the term.

Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

> > > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows
for
> > > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> > > >
> > > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think
I
> > > > don't?
> > >
> > > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic
by
> > > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
> >
> > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
>
> Arguments from popularity are exactly that.

Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
suffering under a delusion.

> Once again, I ask how is the
> golden rule the required morality for any human?

Strawman.

> I agree it is common to
> North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
popularity.

> > > I can
> > > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on
eating
> > > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> > > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
> >
> > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
principle
> > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
premeditated
> > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
>
> Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

I did the exact opposite.

> There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
being coherent.

> > > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> > > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> > > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given
issue.
> >
> > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
>
> That wasn't my point at all.

It's precisely what you said right above. "claims of morality are
ridiculous, when all we are really speaking of is when a group of humans (X)
thinks Y about any given issue."

You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
involve what a group of humans think.